The politicisation of of AGW.

[The Bigfella]

Ian, I still don't get how scientists researching AGW have politicized it.

You don't understand post 4... then I guess I can't help you

[PeterSibley]

C'mon.... even the scientists have politicised it. The biggest input to AGW is population growth, but they ignore that and chase soft targets to satisfy their own funding needs.

Nup, that makes no sense at all. Just silly.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

AndyG has it right. (Reason 679 why I'm not a Repub)

[LeeG]

You don't understand post 4... then I guess I can't help you

your lack of clarity isn't helping your argument.

[The Bigfella]

Gee, I'm sorry then. I guess that means I'll have to tootle off to bed now and leave you unsatisfied. I've got to raise $30 mil for a client tomorrow.... and I better have my clarity bits working by the time I walk into the first meeting. Cheers.... happy to come back to this tomorrow.....

[TANSTAF1]

I have just skimmed through prior posts.

My view of why right wing candidates deny AGW is that they know the people most likely to vote for them do not believe in it.

[PeterSibley]

I wonder when the right will admit the possibility of AGW ? Is it possible or does it immediately paint them as unreliable?

[PeterSibley]

I have just skimmed through prior posts.

My view of why right wing candidates deny AGW is that they know the people most likely to vote for them do not believe in it.

Thank you TAN, the reality or not of AGW makes no difference ?

[TANSTAF1]

Thank you TAN, the reality or not of AGW makes no difference ?

I know you are convinced of the reality of AGW.

The fact is that most Americans are not. In fact I think that most Americans believe just the opposite. You can think this incorrect view (to your way of thinking) is due to big oil or big business PR, but it's the truth nonetheless. (I guess I gotta go check some polls to see if I am out to lunch and what I am saying is in fact correct - at this point it is just my feeling/opinion.)

As you know I am not convinced.

[TANSTAF1]

I quickly checked.

Rasmussen is a well known pollster.

He found 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research:

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

[urlhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_globa l_warming_research[/url]

This should give you an indication.

[PeterSibley]

I know you are convinced of the reality of AGW.

The fact is that most Americans are not. In fact I think that most Americans believe just the opposite. You can think this incorrect view (to your way of thinking) is due to big oil or big business PR, but it's the truth nonetheless. (I guess I gotta go check some polls to see if I am out to lunch and what I am saying is in fact correct - at this point it is just my feeling/opinion.)

As you know I am not convinced.

Thanks, a helpful post. There is general acceptance that there have been stuff up and poor data but the overwhelming thrust is pro AGW.That's the science but public opinion is far more subject to the evening news.

The PR industry as I see it .

[LeeG]

Gee, I'm sorry then. I guess that means I'll have to tootle off to bed now and leave you unsatisfied. I've got to raise $30 mil for a client tomorrow.... and I better have my clarity bits working by the time I walk into the first meeting. Cheers.... happy to come back to this tomorrow.....

You do that. I'm making pancakes this morning and will be off on a bicycle ride. Must keep the wheels in motion.

[TANSTAF1]

I am going to start a new thread on one particular recent finding as you want yours to remain strictly on topic as will I.

[LeeG]

I have just skimmed through prior posts.

My view of why right wing candidates deny AGW is that they know the people most likely to vote for them do not believe in it.

a commonality of belief does help one have a sense of belonging, except we're talking about something other than belief in the Great Pumpkin, Santa Claus or the Holy Trinity.

[LeeG]

I quickly checked.

Rasmussen is a well known pollster.

He found 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research:



[urlhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_globa l_warming_research[/url]

This should give you an indication.

a similar number thought Iraq had WMD and links to Al Qaeda. Maybe science isn't about belief.

[LeeG]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tory?track=rss


WASHINGTON -- Energy has become a touchstone issue in the presidential race, and groups backed by oil and coal dollars have spent far more money on ads bashing the president’s record than the Obama campaign and its allies have spent defending it, according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

Relying on the groups' own announcements and data provided to press clients by Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, the Center’s Climate Progress blog calculated that in the first 3-1/2 months of 2012, “groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS, and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads.”

In comparison, the Obama campaign and an affiliated "super PAC," Priorities USA, “have spent at least $1.67 million defending the president’s energy record,” the analysis reported.

[PeterSibley]

a similar number thought Iraq had WMD and links to Al Qaeda. Maybe science isn't about belief.

But unfortunately it is what politics is about ... your PR industry really is far better than anything Goebells could have imagined.

[LeeG]

But unfortunately it is what politics is about ... your PR industry really is far better than anything Goebells could have imagined.

Randolph Hearst would be impressed with Koch brothers funding "populist" politics and elitist "think tanks" creating preferred perceptions.

[TANSTAF1]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tory?track=rss


WASHINGTON -- Energy has become a touchstone issue in the presidential race, and groups backed by oil and coal dollars have spent far more money on ads bashing the president’s record than the Obama campaign and its allies have spent defending it, according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

Relying on the groups' own announcements and data provided to press clients by Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, the Center’s Climate Progress blog calculated that in the first 3-1/2 months of 2012, “groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS, and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads.”

In comparison, the Obama campaign and an affiliated "super PAC," Priorities USA, “have spent at least $1.67 million defending the president’s energy record,” the analysis reported.

I doubt those ads had much to do about AGW. I suspect they were about high gas prices.

It will be interesting to watch if the voters connect the dots between Obama's energy policies which call for higher energy prices (so we will use less of it) and the actual rise in gas prices.

[LeeG]

I doubt those ads had much to do about AGW. I suspect they were about high gas prices.

It will be interesting to watch if the voters connect the dots between Obama's energy policies which call for higher energy prices (so we will use less of it) and the actual rise in gas prices.

$.02 Obama continuing acrimonious relations with Iran is the only connection I see between him and higher oil prices. That bit of insanity is right up there with "securing the world's oil" by our massive presence in the Persian Gulf.

[Flying Orca]

C'mon.... even the scientists have politicised it. The biggest input to AGW is population growth, but they ignore that and chase soft targets to satisfy their own funding needs.

Actually lots of scientists talk about population growth being the driver; unfortunately, any discussion of population growth is political suicide because it's politically incorrect to many on the left and it's undermining basic economic assumptions to many on the right. Of course scientists are going to go after the soft targets, or what one might realistically call the achievable targets, when suggesting mitigation options.

Of course the science doesn't change either way.

[Flying Orca]

Oh, sorry... I keep forgetting what the current topic is. Back in the 70's, when I studied environmental economics at uni, it was global cooling.... then it was global warming, then it was climate change. Today its what? AGW? Just how are we separating AGW out of weather patterns that have so many different inputs these days?

Sorry Ian, I have to call BS on you here. First, there has never been a serious, sustained, well-founded concern about global cooling; this is very well-documented if you care to look. A couple of breathlessly wrong articles in popular news media aren't science. Second, the data supporting AGW are remarkably robust and come from a wide variety of measurements. The evidence is overwhelmingly convincing to all who are capable of understanding it, with the exception of paid shills and cranks.

[Flying Orca]

we should be formulating policies that don't reward the spitting out of rug rats, shouldn't we? At present, breeding is seen as good for the economy and is rewarded.... by both sides of politics.

I completely agree.

btw... I reject the premise that conservative politicians have a "complete aversion to a major segment of scientific investigation". I know, from discussions with several conservative politicians that they take a lot of advice on the subject in this country.

They take a lot of advice on it here, too; unfortunately, they're taking it from the wrong people. Still, the problem is worse in the USA, perhaps because it has a longer tradition of anti-science.

"why do greenies so blatantly ignore the most obvious solution to CO2 pollution, ie nuclear power?" They immediately resort to arguments about first generation designs and bury their heads in the sand.

I completely agree with this as well.

[Flying Orca]

My view of why right wing candidates deny AGW is that they know the people most likely to vote for them do not believe in it.

So, they're pandering to the ignorance of their base?

[C. Ross]

I understand how people make a cause and effect link from energy business interests to Republicsn political positions. It may be true for some.

I think the real truth is that any solutions to AGW require large scale change, led by government. Conservative voters know that, and they are more concerned about government-led lifestyle and economic change than they are about global warming.

If I'm right, this is important for those who want to address AGW in the U.S. When an opponent of AGW feels all righteous and mighty in attacking Big Oil and Big Business, conservative voters have their concerns justified...the AGW crowd is anti-growth, anti-business, anti-conservative. People who say that only radical solutions are adequate make it impossible to get buy-in for even modest steps. Conservative voters equate Green with Radicalism. How sad.

And really, is the best way to slow AGW to somehow change or hobble or even damage the oil and coal business, or to change industrial and consumer behaviors? Don't AGW activists want to change people's hearts and minds? Or would it just feel better to be condescending and self-righteous?

Better would be an appeal to the essential conservativism of conservatives. Most conservative voters aren't rich, they're middle class, and could be reached with an appeal to conserving energy, for tax policies which benefit businesses that save energy. Look what happened in the U.S with recycling...in one generation, everyone learned to do it. Hint: those are things liberals and AGW activists can get behind, too.

[LeeG]

C.Ross, I don't think there are solutions to AGW given our nature to satisfy immediate needs over some generalized reward for subsequent generations, it's simply a shame that securing the economic interests of a few industries requires the cultivation of ignorance over education.

[C. Ross]

Lee, I don't agree that the "economic interests of a few industries" is the cause for global warming, nor would changing their economic interests be an adequate solution.

I think the point is to change our nature to satisfy immediate needs over some generalized reward for subsequent generations.

I don't really buy into the idea that our only choices are nihilism or revolution.

[TANSTAF1]

$.02 Obama continuing acrimonious relations with Iran is the only connection I see between him and higher oil prices. That bit of insanity is right up there with "securing the world's oil" by our massive presence in the Persian Gulf.

My two cents about the connection of Obama to high gas prices. Well actually the two cents of Kraiuthammer and Du Pont:

President Obama incessantly claims energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is “all of the above.” Except, of course, for drilling:

- off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants);


- off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there);


- in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts);


- in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles International Airport);


- on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).


. . . his veto of the Keystone pipeline, after the most extensive environmental vetting of any pipeline in U.S. history . . . gave the game away because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.


Obama boasts that, on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.

On 2/23/12 Obama said “The American people aren’t stupid,”The “only solution, is we start using less — that lowers the demand, prices come down.”

But brief moments later he says {regardless of} “how much oil we produce at home that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”

So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?


Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...7ES_story.html

The policy of the Obama administration has been not to increase the energy supplies that are so critical to our nation's economic health, but to limit them, to increase energy prices, and to make energy more expensive.

Eliminating tax deductions for the oil and gas industries is at the top of the President's list, which would increase the price of gasoline and home heating oil for everyone. But this fits in with the Obama administration's overall inclination to hamper domestic production, whether through slowness in granting new permits or refusal to open new areas for exploration. In fact oil, production on federal lands was flat between 2009 to 2011, while production on nonfederal lands increased almost 7%.


And it is not just petroleum. Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency wants to increase regulation of coal-fueled electricity plants, which produce almost half of our electricity, so as to drive up the price of electricity and force plants to close. None of this should be surprising, for as we know, Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, told The Wall Street Journal in 2008 that we must "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." {i.e., $8 to $10 per gallon.}


The president admitted that his cap-and-trade energy proposals, had they come to pass, would cause energy prices to "skyrocket" and bankrupt coal companies. In the Mr. Obama's words, coal fired plants can be built, but if they are, "it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum" for emitting the greenhouse gases.


. . .


Approving the Keystone pipeline so that more energy comes into America is an important first step. The president has twice rejected congressional efforts to approve it.




. . .


Finally, a look at the George W. Bush's and Mr. Obama's efforts to increase government regulation—not just in energy, but across the economy—shows the difference between the two presidents. In his first three years in office Mr. Bush put into place 28 major regulations. Mr. Obama's three years have seen 106 major regulations. In dollar terms the Bush regulations cost $8.1 billion and Obama's $46 billion.


So where America is and what it is doing in energy policies has changed a great deal in the past three years, mostly in a regressive direction. Energy is essential for a strong America, but the current administration seems to be doing all it can to keep us from tapping the reliable energy supplies we have right here in our country—coal, oil, and gas—and from our neighbor to the north. Instead we are being pushed towards other energy sources that are inefficient, expensive and will only provide a fraction of the energy a strong America needs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_MIDDLESecond

[LeeG]

Lee, I don't agree that the "economic interests of a few industries" is the cause for global warming, nor would changing their economic interests be an adequate solution.

I think the point is to change our nature to satisfy immediate needs over some generalized reward for subsequent generations.

I don't really buy into the idea that our only choices are nihilism or revolution.

My argument wasn't that the economic interests of a few industries is the cause of global warming but the nature of homo sapiens to seek immediate reward over some hypothesized benefit to subsequent generations. I don't think our nature can be changed although our behavior can to secure immediate needs. If fuel costs too much we'll use less, if X source of protein is too expensive we'll try Y.
Nihilism or revolution aren't my issue as much as understanding how we transition from high energy consumption to lower with some understanding of the direction our present course is taking us.
The shame I'm speaking of is how those with tremendous resources appeal to ignorance to secure their interests.

[LeeG]

My two cents about the connection of Obama to high gas prices. Well actually the two cents of Kraiuthammer and Du Pont:




On 2/23/12 Obama said “The American people aren’t stupid,”The “only solution, is we start using less — that lowers the demand, prices come down.”

But brief moments later he says {regardless of} “how much oil we produce at home that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...7ES_story.html



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_MIDDLESecond

What are you trying to say?

[TANSTAF1]

What are you trying to say?

when you said: "$.02 Obama continuing acrimonious relations with Iran is the only connection I see between him and higher oil prices. That bit of insanity is right up there with "securing the world's oil" by our massive presence in the Persian Gulf" I thought you meant that was Obama's only contribution to higher gas prices.

I was providing some comments that present a different view.

[LeeG]

when you said: "$.02 Obama continuing acrimonious relations with Iran is the only connection I see between him and higher oil prices. That bit of insanity is right up there with "securing the world's oil" by our massive presence in the Persian Gulf" I thought you meant that was Obama's only contribution to higher gas prices.

I was providing some comments that present a different view.

yes that is my opinion, I don't see how your c&p applies.

[John Meachen]

A few months ago I read the book "Climategate" subtitled the CRUTAPE LETTERS by Steven Mosher and Thomas W.Fuller.It is by no means an easy read as it is full of acronyms and it deals with the political manoueverings of the people in the business of climate science.It is also not particularly well written as it was put together in a hurry.It relates in part to the release of thousands of emails just before the Copenhagen conference on climate change and what they described.I took an interest because the institution at the centre of the controversy is a mile down the road.I found it depressing both for the machinations of the people and because they were unable to present any evidence that the emails were fabricated or tampered with.I have been left with a distaste for the politicking from both sides of the "debate" I have used quotation marks because it seems to be impossible to persuade proponents of either extreme view that they may not be totally correct.I found the book depressing,the fact that it could be written is also depressing.The thing is it was written and it needs to be read to understand the background to the whole miserable business.

[Chip-skiff]

I think the biggest problem for the Right is that if AGW truly exists, then that means the Left has been right about the pollution problem all along-- and that is something they can not tolerate. Not just being proved wrong, but being proved wrong so publicly and after so much stonewalling. It's a humiliation they are not willing to swallow.

This is astute. One key characteristic of self-described conservatives is a resistance to change, and most particularly having to change one's mind. I regard that blind insistence on always being right as a symptom of instability, insecurity, and self-doubt.

It also accounts for the constant need to revise, rewrite, or forget recent history.

[PeterSibley]

[QUOTE=Blowtorch;3379895.

I think the biggest problem for the Right is that if AGW truly exists, then that means the Left has been right about the pollution problem all along-- and that is something they can not tolerate. Not just being proved wrong, but being proved wrong so publicly and after so much stonewalling. It's a humiliation they are not willing to swallow.[/QUOTE]

That seems about right and as TAN says the majority of the conservative voting public are convinced it's all rubbish, some kind of socialist plot no doubt.

From this position it will be almost impossible to change .

AGW will progress, along with the acidification of the oceans and I think there is almost zero chance of reversing the situation .

[Chip-skiff]

AGW will progress, along with the acidification of the oceans and I think there is almost zero chance of reversing the situation .

Sad but likely true. When the idea that human activity was changing the climate first surfaced, I was very reluctant to believe it. In fact, the very idea made me sick. But the field data I collected over the years (temperature profiles and ice in/out dates on alpine lakes; snowpack dynamics and chemistry; and glacial extent) none of which were focussed on global climate change, convinced me, along with my readings in science.

Still, I've been trying to forestall it as an individual. See below, copied from another thread:

- - -

Just wanted to register a significant event (for us). The latest power bill:


We started up a 4 kw PV grid-tie system last October, which I designed to supply a bit less than our needs in the winter months and considerably more in spring, summer and fall. The net meter reached about 2500 (that is we used that amount from the grid above what we generated) and is now going down. In March we banked 92 kwh. Since we're members of an electric co-op, we pay line charges ($25) and also our satellite internet connection ($50).

We wanted to do something, not just bemoan the failures of government, etc., so we did. Nice that it seems to be working.

[elf]

The jig has been up for a couple years now. So much damage has been done and no effort is being made to stem the onslaught of continued stupidity.

[PeterSibley]

Sad but likely true. When the idea that human activity was changing the climate first surfaced, I was very reluctant to believe it. In fact, the very idea made me sick. But the field data I collected over the years (temperature profiles and ice in/out dates on alpine lakes; snowpack dynamics and chemistry; and glacial extent) none of which were focussed on global climate change, convinced me, along with my readings in science.

Still, I've been trying to forestall it as an individual. See below, copied from another thread:

- - -

Just wanted to register a significant event (for us). The latest power bill:


We started up a 4 kw PV grid-tie system last October, which I designed to supply a bit less than our needs in the winter months and considerably more in spring, summer and fall. The net meter reached about 2500 (that is we used that amount from the grid above what we generated) and is now going down. In March we banked 92 kwh. Since we're members of an electric co-op, we pay line charges ($25) and also our satellite internet connection ($50).

We wanted to do something, not just bemoan the failures of government, etc., so we did. Nice that it seems to be working.

Congratulations and well done ! Biodiesel for 2 vehicles is my only attempt, our electricity is supposedly wind and solar but with the accounting games the suppliers play I can't be sure that it really is .

[The Bigfella]

You do that. I'm making pancakes this morning and will be off on a bicycle ride. Must keep the wheels in motion.

Your peddling action will contribute to AGW btw. Simple physics.

[LeeG]

I believe you're peddling, I'm pedaling.

[The Bigfella]

I believe you're peddling, I'm pedaling.

I thought you were doing both

[LeeG]

I thought you were doing both

you're the one framing science in terms of marketing packages

[Dan McCosh]

It seems a basic requirement for candidates on the US right to deny any possibility of man made global warming. I this very strange indeed, the science of AGW is as well credentialed as any other science but has been labeled as unreliable to such an extent that total denial is necessary by any presidential pretender. It is not possible for any right wing politician that I have heard to even countenance the possibility of AGW being correct.

Does this apply to other fields of science in the US ?

Why is it so?

Nuclear energy quickly comes to mind. Transportation safety has a long history of politics. Most environmental issues have a strong political component. Agricultural sciences also are heavily politicized. So is medicine. The politics don't come from the "science" itself, however, they come from the associated projections of the consequences of various applications of the science. Look at the construction of a hydroelectric dam, for example--it can be viewed as the most benign and helpful project, or an environmental blight, depending on what science your are looking at, or your political point of view. Few doubt it's ability to generate electricity.

[Chip-skiff]

One key distinction on the longterm worth of energy sources is whether they add heat to the earth's surface and atmosphere.

Photovoltaic and solar thermal generation use present insolation and convert it, with losses owing to inefficiency. They score high for being renewable. The weakness is in the hardware: mining, processing, and manufacturing that relies on fossil fuels, and also in the distribution and timing of supplies.

Wind generation converts present thermodynamic potential to electricity. The weaknesses are similar to those of solar generation, with the added problem that wind turbines are less mechanically sound and require far more maintenance than solar panels.

Hydroelectric converts gravitational energy to heat-producing electricity. The natural shear (friction) of water on beds and banks produces heat, to which the uses of the electricity generated would seem to add. Complicated question.

Fossil fuels convert solar energy that has been chemically bound in carbon-rich substances back into heat, via combustion. Taking these compounds from the crust and rapidly converting them to energy via combustion would seem to add considerable heat to the atmosphere, along with carbon, which decreases the radiation of heat from the atmosphere.

Nuclear generation relies on breaking and reforging chemical bonds originally derived from solar energy and gravitation. It adds considerable heat to the atmosphere (cf. the huge cooling towers and use of surface water to cool reactors) but does not add much carbon. It shares the weakness of solar and wind generation in terms of hardware, but the output can be more easily controlled.

Summed up, I'd say the priority is to eliminate the industrial use of fossil fuels for energy generation, starting with the most carbon-producing (coal), then oil, and finally natural gas. Nuclear generation might provide a bridge but is dangerous in the long run (cf. Chernobyl, Fukushima Daichi).

This strategy has political and financial consequences, of course. But they're not as great as the predicted longterm effect of AGW.

[David W Pratt]

Sex and/or racial differences in intelligence gets pretty politicized, likewise, evolution, especially evolution of human sex roles.